The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

About The Volokh Conspiracy Editorial Independence Who we are Books Volokh Daily Email Archives Search DMCA RSS

Standing

Supreme Court Allows White House Ballroom Construction to Go Forward, at Least for Now

The majority didn't decide whether the construction violated federal law, only that plaintiffs' purely aesthetic interests didn't allow them to assert a federal claim.

Eugene Volokh | 8.31.2026 5:02 PM

From the unsigned majority opinion today in National Park Serv. v. National Trust for Historic Preservation:

In October 2025, the federal government started a project to replace the East Wing of the White House. The first phase involved the demolition of the existing East Wing, something the government completed in December 2025. The next phase, currently ongoing, involves the construction of a new East Wing, including a below-ground military installation and an above-ground ballroom.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States (Trust) filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging various aspects of the project…. On March 31, 2026, the district court granted the Trust's motion [to halt ongoing construction] and issued a preliminary injunction … [that] enjoined any further construction above ground, except as "strictly necessary" to protect the White House, the President, and his staff….  On August 7, 2026, the court of appeals … upheld the district court's injunction….

Confronted with an imminent order requiring it to substantially halt its ongoing construction activities, the government filed a motion in this Court seeking a stay of the district court's injunction pending a forthcoming petition for a writ of certiorari and any further proceedings in this Court….

Beginning with the merits, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks standing to challenge the East Wing project…. To establish its standing to bring this case, the Trust relies on a declaration from a single [one] of its members, Alison K. Hoagland. Hoagland says that she lives in Washington, D. C., and expects to visit the neighborhood around the White House "about once a month." She asserts that having to view the finished ballroom the government is constructing would cause her to suffer "injuries" to her "aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests" because she finds the "scale," "height," and "massing" of the government's design distasteful. On the strength of that declaration, the Trust contends, it has Article III standing to challenge the East Wing project.

This Court has not found standing in circumstances like these before. To the contrary, we have repeatedly held that mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury under Article III. As we have put it, "this Court has long made clear that distress at or disagreement with the activities of others is not a basis under Article III for a plaintiff to bring a federal lawsuit." Instead, to secure standing a plaintiff must identify some concrete and particularized injury "other than the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees."

Nor is it clear what would remain of Article III's concrete-and-particularized injury requirement if we were to extend our case law in the manner the Trust now suggests. Perhaps nearly any government action or project offends someone's sensibilities. And adopting the Trust's "unprecedented and limitless" view that offense alone suffices to establish a concrete and particularized injury would seemingly usher in a world where "virtually every citizen had standing to challenge virtually every government action that they do not like—an approach to standing that this Court has consistently rejected as flatly inconsistent with Article III." Alliance, 602 U. S., at 391–392. Absent some considerable revision to our existing standing doctrine, then, the government is likely to succeed on the merits.

To be sure, and as the Trust observes, we have found standing in certain environmental cases where the plaintiff 's injuries involved more than mere offense. So, for example, in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. (2000), we found standing where the plaintiffs alleged that "harmful pollutants" the defendant discharged into a river forced them to abandon "fish[ing], camp[ing], swim[ming], and picnic[king] in and near the river" as they had in the past. And in Summers v. Earth Island Institute (2009), we noted the government's concession that one member of the plaintiff organization previously had standing to sue for injuries to his "recreational interests" in a national forest before ultimately denying standing because a partial settlement left no member with a concrete and imminent injury. None of this, however, helps the Trust because none of it unseats this Court's long-held view........

© Reason.com